drive_search

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden; it does convey that this is a non-mutating retrieval operation with optional filters. It stays silent on result ordering, pagination/truncation behavior under the default limit of 30, and the notable cost implication of the locations parameter — that cost is only in the schema, not the description.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the search scope and then qualifies the filters — no filler. It is arguably a touch thin for an 8-parameter tool, but nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 8 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose and filter intent but not what a result item looks like or how empty queries behave. The rich schema compensates on parameters, but the absence of annotations means more behavioral disclosure would have been warranted.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each of the 8 parameters is already documented in structured data; baseline 3 applies. The description echoes three of them (type, owner, modification date) but adds no syntax, defaults, or interaction guidance (e.g., empty query combined with a filter) beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Search Drive (file names and content)") plus the return shape and the filter axes. An agent can distinguish it from drive_list or drive_location on intent, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the verb "search" and the note that results may be "optionally filtered" — so an agent infers this is the query-by-text tool rather than the browse tool. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no pointer to drive_list or drive_location for enumeration versus search.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.